Wednesday, April 22, 2009

The False Accuser Speaks

[Update III, 1.45pm: I emailed both of the listed student organizers for the event, asking if they would share their rationale for inviting someone whose false claims initiated a case of massive prosecutorial misconduct to speak at event supposedly highlighting the difficulties that NC minorities have experienced with prosecutorial misconduct. Neither student replied.

[Update, 11.59am: A few other attendees have posted their notes on the event in the comments section, including items from the Q&A with Ed Clark; my thanks to all. In addition, the Daily Tar Heel story on the event says that Mangum "was especially bothered by a news segment showing her dancing at a bar, which she said the media falsely stated was two days* after the alleged rape." I can't say that I read everything published about the case, but I did read an awful lot--and I cannot recall a single article that claimed the video of Mangum dancing at the strip club "was two days after the alleged rape." (The video took place on March 25, 2006, at about the same time as the 'candelight vigil' protest.) But, as we know, Ms. Mangum has serious psychological problems, and a tendency to invent things.

Additionally, DTH reports that "due to an appointment, Mangum had to leave before the question and answer session of the event." I will leave it to others to determine what type of "appointment" Ms. Mangum would need to reach at 7.30 in the evening wearing a pink ball cap, an Old Navy hoodie and jeans.]

At the Liestoppers forum, Walt-in-Durham has a detailed rundown of Crystal Mangum’s appearance tonight at UNC. As I have noted previously, it is mindboggling that an academic institution would invite someone who the state AG had, with copious evidence, deemed a false accuser and not allow her to be questioned on the myriad contradictions in her story. It is all the more mindboggling that the only reason for this refusal to allow questions was to prevent the false accuser from saying something that could open her to a lawsuit.

I should note, in addition, that Mangum’s p.r. representative had similarly informed me of the media difficulties that the false accuser had in promoting her book. As I told him at the time, it’s my sense that most media organizations will not put on the air someone whose assertions they know to be false, if only to avoid massive legal liability.

Below is an excerpt from Walt’s rundown; the full version, with an excellent graphic, is now at the Liestoppers homepage:

After the Ed Clark monologue, he introduced Crystal. But, he immediately launched into a vigorous narrative, again rehearsed, about how the CBS show 60 Minutes would not pay for Crystal’s interview and he claimed to have a copy of an email from CBS saying that one of the families had total access to 60 Minutes and they would bury Mike Nifong. He continued on that HBO had been in contact with him about interviewing Crystal and doing a promotion for the book. He then complained that HBO had a line producer call to kill the project. They pushed back the publication date while they hunted for another media outlet for the launch. Then he claimed that the NBC Today Show sent a vice president, and a camera crew to interview Crystal. The NBC crew allegedly followed her around North Carolina Central’s campus, talked to her Pastor, family and friends. She gave them a four hour interview where they could and did ask any questions. Clark never disclosed the questions. According to Clark, the “contract” between NBC and Crystal would have her on the Today Show, Dateline, MSNBC and CNBC all on the day the book launched. Again a “line producer,” not the VP or producer they had met, called to tell them the promotion was off and the book launched without a major network availability. After Clark’s recitation of his difficulties launching the book, Crystal Gail Mangum spoke.

She opened immediately by stating unequivocally that she was raped. She did not name names though. She did mention Duke Lacrosse in the same general time frame, but it seemed like they were being careful not to make too close a linkage between the two. She also claimed that she had never been heard. She claimed that on the night she was “raped” she was not on medications. She claimed that the defense team had her medical records and was taking a whole year’s worth of medications and claimed that she was on them the night of the “rape”. Crystal then described some symptoms of post traumatic stress disorder that she suffered, and closed with a pitch for the book.

*--DTH reported "two hours," but two DIW readers at the event recalled that Mangum said "two days."

57 comments:

Anonymous
said...

She opened immediately by stating unequivocally that she was raped.You will never shut Crystal Mangum up. The justice system fail this poor woman. How horrible. It is obvious UNC didn't give a damn what Roy Cooper declared. As a matter of fact, UNC basically told Roy Cooper to kiss where the sun don't shine.

My recall was along the lines of Walt’s reporting. A lot of people (perhaps including Walt) disappeared after CGM spoke and Clark came back later to take some questions so my narrative includes that part.

This was followed by video of CGM at what was described as her first public appearance. In this appearance, she states that she does not want publicity. The video also included pieces of an interview with her drivers. This video was difficult for me to follow due to poor sound quality.

CGM started by complaining that the lacrosse players’ defense attorneys had learned of all the medications she had taken in the year prior to March, 2006 and had suggested that she had been on most/all of these medications the night of the lacrosse party. She then discussed how she had suffered PTSD and had graduated from NCCU with a 3.7 GPA. She reflected that “Life has changed so much” and “every day is a struggle.”

After the video, CGM and Ed Clark began speaking live. Clark recounted how he had first heard the story about the Duke incident on CNN while at Midway Airport in Chicago. He said hearing the story “made me want to come home.” He then discussed his interest in high profile legal cases and how an attorney friend told him that he (the attorney friend) could arrange a conversation with the accuser (CGM). He recalled that he “knew it would be an important moment in North Carolina.”

CGM then discussed how, “when you are raped, you do not want everyone to know. My picture and name were publicized. . . . [I felt like] the whole world was against me.” She stated that, at that time, she felt she could not trust anyone. She did not want to use some counseling resources because “my medical records were being policed.” He said the DPD let her down as did everyone she came in contact with. As Walt pointed out, she never said who raped her.

The discussion then turned to how Clark and CGM felt that the media had stiff armed them. Clark talked of a “well-oiled machine” that could get the lacrosse players on 60 Minutes and keep CGM off. CGM complained that 60 Minutes did not check its sources. Interestingly, she complained that 60 Minutes never contacted her about Kim Roberts’ claim that CGM wanted Roberts to “put marks on her.” However, she did not use this opportunity to say that the Roberts claim about “putting marks on her” was a lie. She merely complained that the show did not ask her about Roberts’ statement.

Clark then discussed how HBO acquired rights to the lacrosse story and how various people would be compensated but that he was not offered anything.

I also got the impression that Clark claimed 60 Minutes sent a memo to the lacrosse families suggesting the show would “put a bullet in Nifong’s head and discredit Crystal.”

CGM recounted how CNN spent four hours interviewing her after the AG report was released. She felt that CNN was “disappointed” she was not “an addict on welfare.” They then claimed that CNN killed the interview (conducted by Soledad O’Brien) and then would not take their calls.

Clark complained that the possible date for airing the CNN interview coincided with the intended release date of the Magnum book (May 15, 2008). He also pointed out that he got the message that the interview would not be broadcast from a lower level CNN producer.

Clark then discussed how an NBC VP called about a possible segment on Dateline which would also give the book exposure on the Today Show, MSNBC, and CNBC. After filming, they learned from a “line producer” that NBC would not run the interview because they did not find CGM to be credible.

Clark also complained about a new website created by Tina Brown. According to Clark, Brown would feature the CGM book on the website’s first day and that two million “hits” were anticipated. As with CNN and NBC, the Brown site (“Daily Beast”) got cold feet and pulled out.

Clark then said that CGM had the flu this week and he had promised her that she would not have to stay at the event too long. Before heading to a nearby side door that directly exited the building, CGM talked about the importance of speaking out, we are all God’s children, etc.

After CGM left, student leaders presented five cases of prosecutorial misconduct in North Carolina. The cases included Darryl Hunt whose conviction was overturned when he was exonerated by DNA evidence. Another case was Ronnie Long, who claimed that he was in jail because the prosecution withheld exculpatory evidence and an inaccurate description from his putative victim.

After these cases, Clark took a handful of questions, some of which were submitted and screened and some which came directly from the audience.

It was hard to follow the questions, but it was interesting to follow Clark’s comments.

One interesting answer (I did not hear the question) was, “What if she is lying? What of it?

He said that Nifong’s biggest mistake was that he “went against the wrong people.”

He said that there was a pattern to the disappearing interviews because it was about “crushing anyone who would implicate their children. These people (lacrosse families) have dinner with Sumner Redstone and Jack Welch.”

“Whether CGM is credible or not, a jury must decide.”

He said that executive producers keep calling him to do stories, but the higher level executives kill the stories. According to Clark, other media projects that were stillborn included Inside Edition, Geraldo Rivera on Fox, and HBO sports.

When asked if having the rug pulled out from him was legally actionable, he indicated that he had “emails from people who guaranteed me things.” But, he also indicated that he would not pursue legal action.

He claimed to ask AG Cooper if “all the records will be released” and suggested that there were things that had not yet come to light about the case.

This is the best recounting I can offer at this time. Tomorrow, I will provide my analysis and impressions.

It's some consolation to see that no recognizable name showed up to hear her speak, not Nifong, Victoria Peterson, or any of those wack jobs, no NCNAACP people, no 88ers. I'm sure this fellow Walt would've mentioned it if they were there.

Mangum must be abysmally unimpressive in person with a demeanor and speaking style that shouts "not credible!" When one thinks of all the opportunities she's had to win people over to her side, people who wanted nothing more than to elevate her and idealize her, and yet she's failed consistently, it can only mean that her mental problems are glaringly obvious to anyone who spends any time at all talking to her.

Still I'm curious about that book sales question. I'd like to know how many people actually laid down cold hard cash to read the nonsense she wrote.

I went to see the famous Crystal Mangum but I found other things to be more interesting.

1. THINGS UNSAID

As Walt pointed out, CGM said she was raped but never really mentioned lacrosse or Duke. As far as I heard, Clark never made the assertion that she was raped by the LAXers either. In fact, he might not have even stated she was raped.

CGM mentioned Roberts’ assertion that CGM wanted Roberts to “put marks on her.” Despite the fact that this was damning evidence against CGM, Mangum did not refute what Roberts said.

Clark complained that Cooper had not released all information on the case but, at the same time, Clark did not suggest that Cooper arrived at the wrong decision.

I don’t know that Clark ever strongly asserted that CGM has been truthful and the night of the party. He said that he thought CGM had been “candid” in the book but he did not specify what she was being candid about (her feelings, dancing to support her children, the rape and its perpetrators). He is not specific.

Overall, I got the impression that Clark and CGM were being extraordinarily careful to avoid making assertions that have been central to the hoax narrative but, at this time, could be easily disproven. At the same time, their wording was suggestive enough to satisfy those who have bought the hoax and need another drink of Kool Aid.

2. THE WRONGFUL CONVICTION CASES PRESENTED

The student leaders presented five cases of wrongful or potentially wrongful convictions of minority men (four African-American and one Latino) in NC. The most notable was Darryl Hunt. Some of the issues in these cases were familiar to those in the lacrosse case: bad IDs in a lineup, lack of DNA matches, withholding of exculpatory evidence, and inaccurate descriptions of (alleged) attackers.

In discussing these cases along with the Mangum story, I gather the sponsors wanted to make one of two points. Both are very unsettling.

The first is that they are directly comparing falsely accused minority men with the falsely accused lacrosse players. The logic here is that, since the minority men suffered terribly and served time despite their innocence, maybe the lacrosse players should have been treated similarly – a sort of historical tit for tat. (“Whether guilty or not, it would be justice for things . . . . “) Rather than be happy that a miscarriage of justice was avoided in the lacrosse case, there is dissatisfaction that injustice and misery were not spread more widely.

The second is that they simply see the Mangum case as another example of the justice system screwing over minority citizens. If this is the case, they have taken both sides (pro prosecution and pro defendant) in cases that included bad lineup procedures, lack of DNA matches, withheld evidence, and victim descriptions of perps that did not match those ultimately indicted. They are either the most dishonest or the most irony challenged students at UNC.

3. CGM – CIVIL RIGHTS STRUGGLE PARALLEL

The attempt to draw parallels between the Mangum case and the horrors of the 1960s insults the memory of Civil Rights martyrs to a degree that the KKK could only dream of.

4. ED CLARK

CGM said she did not want publicity and did not want everyone to know she was raped, yet Clark whines about how his media publicity always evaporates and he is thwarted in getting her story out. Clark acknowledged that he felt the story “would be an important moment in NC history” and how he sought out a friend who could arrange a meeting with CGM. He tells us others have been offered deals (HBO) but he has been left out. Rather than dinging the media for their content about CGM, the real issue for him appears to be that his book was not adequately supported.

The bottom line is that CGM is a product for Clark. She is not a particularly good product but Clark has a monopoly. He is desperate to market her while she still has shelf life. Overall, the event at UNC was much more about Clark and his book than Ms. Mangum. It was fully appropriate that she said little of value and left midway through the program. She was a prop.

I doubt that Clark believes her story any more than Roy Cooper, KC Johnson, and Joe Cheshire do. Judging by his language, I suspect he knows that she is lying but is careful to appear to believe her because he cannot wittingly promote a “bad product”.

Furthermore, I believe she knows she is lying but keeps it up to save face, maintain the attention (75-100 people showed up) and keep the gravy train running. She might or might not know that Clark knows she is lying.

The relationship they have has the appearance of a sick, symbiotic arrangement that uses casuistry, deceptive language, and feigned ignorance to make a few bucks off some actual true believers or cynical race mongers who share Clark and CGM’s dishonesty.

The relationship between the Duke 88 and other “thought leaders” and CGM is similar. I would guess that they all realize she is a liar but her insistence that she was raped is their fig leaf for waging ideological warfare.

I look forward to hearing the take of the "professionals" in the media.

Commenter "Baldo" at Liestoppers brilliantly summarized the event in this manner:

"So again the entertainment was late to the party, left early, and disappointed all."

Indeed.

What was new and revealing in Walt's report were the admissions by Crystal's "PR Guy," Vince “Ed” Clark, who continues to make a fool of himself in promoting a person who is a pathological liar in Mangum, that CNN, HBO and CBS played him like an old Carolina fiddle and left him high and dry.

Recall that in his comments on this forum on 4/11/09 about his publicity efforts Clark wrote, “Everyone we had commitments from backed out. None of the reasons given would have been okay with anyone else on here. We gave our word, participated in the projects with no strings attached and that’s the way it is.” Clark never had a "commitment" of any kind. Those networks stepped on Ed like a grape … welcome to the “Big Leagues!”

The producers looked at the interviews of Mangum and probably stared at each other in stunned amazement and shook their heads in unison. So, they said, “Have a ‘line producer’ call Ed and tell him “no deal.” You all know what a “line producer” is, right? It’s a person who gives fellow employees “lines” they can use in bars to pickup folks, like, “Haven’t we met before?”

Ed Clark could not run a successful PR campaign for a group of blind kids who were denied participation in a public Easter Egg Hunt.

And my guess is the reason Clark did not permit questions (note Walt's report indicates she "showed twenty minutes late"; he "prompted" Mangum; it was "well rehearsed" and Clark "jumped in" during some of Mangum's comments) is Clark said Crystal had the "flu."

No doubt she was likely stricken with the same Amber Plastic Container and Amber Bottle "Flu" that she had on the night she danced at 610 Buchanan and on the day she testified before the AG committee. Terrible thing that "Flu."

In short, he was afraid of her saying much ... he didn’t want her "telling her story" as it were.

Another reason might be that the sponsors re-thought the format and objected to any censorship of the questions, so Ed refused to allow any questions.

But, apart from an idealistic and sympathetic “diversity sorority,” Ed Clark cannot and will not find a viable forum for Mangum to tell her story. And it is for that reason that the players, families or anyone else suing her, or the State preferring very minor criminal charges against Mangum would be a no-win situation for them. The families have raised the specter of a lawsuit in order to prevent further mention of the lacrosse players, and that has succeeded … Mangum mentions no “names.”

But, think about it.

A lawsuit is exactly what Mangum and Clark want … that would provide an instant, very public forum for Mangum and instant misguided sympathy from the perpetually delusional, “true believers” for this “poor single mother of three being persecuted by wealthy white folks from up north” or the big bad State.

On the Crystal Gail Mangum "show", it is always someone else's fault. Last night at UNC-CH, was a perfect example of the perpetuation of this pathetict's attempt to use the Adlerian theory of depreciation to attempt to build her credibility by always blaming someone else for her wretched life's problems.

With Crystal GAil Mangum, it is always someone else's fault. It's someone else's fault that she was forced to regularly sell her sexual "favors" to multiple men and women while plying her profession as an "entertainer" in order to go to college and , simultaneously, support illigitimate children born of her "professional" work. It is someone else's fault that there is more DNA in and on her than in most research laboratories. It is someone else's fault that her harmful lies were exposed, and she lost all sympathy. It is someone else's fault that she has set back the plight of raped and mistreated women around the world because of the doubt her lies have cast on all such claims and the fear to come forward she has engendered in women who have actually been raped. It is someone else's fault that when her total lack of honesty was exposed, her value to Mikey Nifong and the band of 88 dropped faster than the Dow , and she was "kicked to the curb". It is someone else's fault that most emplyoers really do undrstand that if her "academic" degree from NC Central was not an outright gift, it is, nonetheless, not comparable to legitimate academic achievement .

It's someone else's fault that the NC Attorney General found ABSOLUTELY no credible evidence to support her accusatory lies about the so-called crimes against her . It's someone else's fault that some of her previous history of illegal behaviors became known. It's someone else's fault that the major media outlets now clearly see her and her "agent" as complete charletons , liers and totally un-newsworthy.

It's someone else's fault that few, if any, buy her book( obviously written for her) that is filled with self-pity, misinformation , egregious errors of fact and continuing attempts to manifest racial bigotry as the reason anyone disagrees with CGM's false allegations.

It's someone else's fault that few are empathetic toward this psychologically impaired tramp whose agent "prepares" her for this major presentation on one of America's finest universities by dressing her in a pink ball cap.(And neither she nor her agent can fathom the lack of interest in her).

It's someone else's fault that fewer than 100 people are interested enough in her "plight" to show up for her attempt to convince the national media of her "legitimacy" as a victim(there must have been better comedy elsewhere on the UNC-CH campus last night).

It's sombody else's fault that she is not rich and famous because of her obvious "talents" as a professional entertainer, DNA repository, and subject of a poorly written tome that few waste their money on.

In reality, CGM is , indeed, infamous, and she will go to her grave known, literally, by millions. Unfortunately, in her most prolific line of work, the volume and price of her product is never great enough to create wealth.

There was a time(however brief) when I felt sorry for this wretched woman because she was being used by so many (Nifong, NYT, NAACP, etc)who were attempting to enhance their own noteriety. Now, I have grown tired of her irritating whine. Not unless and until the totality of her crude emptiness is fully exposed will Crystal GAil Mangum ever go away.

We as a nation of honorable people, owe Reade, Colin and David complete exoneration. WE owe it to all those women who are legitimately brutalized in our society to take the "spootlight" off of this charleton.It will not occur until Crystal Gail Mangum is fully exposed for who and what she really is.

This report is not as thorough as Walt or Anon @ 11:32 PM's excellent reports, but this is in today's Daily Tar Heel”Duke lacrosse accuser speaks”However, unlike Ed Clark's "Flu" excuse, the reports states, "But due to an appointment, Mangum had to leave before the question and answer session of the event."The reporter did not mention who drove Mangum to her appointment.

First, I defend Crystal Mangum's right to speak. Freedom of speech, especailly at a government owned forum is a cherished right.

Second, I have no idea how much permission the University had in Crystal's talk. They provided the space. But, a student sorority was the sponsor.

Third, I did leave when Crystal left. I had questions for her, not Ed Clark. While she is newsworthy, he is not. I am glad someone stayed to the end. That makes the record complete.

Fourth, this does not prove UNC can let controversial speakers speak. It just proves that the student body extends more courtesy to strippers than former Congressmen and former Attorneys General. Not an admirable position for the student body of the state's flagship institution of higher learning.

Just from a point of interest I do not believe that Mangum and clark were invited by an academic institution. They were invited by a multi-cultural sorority at UNC that rented UNC space for the talk. I believe it was a private invitation held at a public building on the UNC campus by a student multi-cultural society.

Still I'm curious about that book sales question. I'd like to know how many people actually laid down cold hard cash to read the nonsense she wrote.It seems to me that this whole thing with Clark is simply money. Who wants to be paid to talk about themselves being raped. Most if not all rape survivors who do talk to the media don't do it for the cash, they do it for the safety of other potential rape victims.

I can see where the university would have little control over this because it was a campus group who sponsored it, not the university administration. I wonder how much money the group had to pay CGM just to show up.

Ed's statements about getting an email that one family controlled the 60 minutes interview is just beyond words. He made others and I'm wondering when one of these "media outlets" is going to come down on him with a really big hammer

The reaction to Crystal's appearance is interesting. A few dozen people show up, no media, no talking heads, none of the major Egos.

The reason this is interesting is that on any issue whatsoever, there is always a fringe. Take a poll. Ask any question whatsoever. There will never be 100% unanimity.

The question can be, "what color is white?". If you offer multiple choice answers, SOMEONE will choose the answer, "black". (If anyone knows any exceptions to this extreme hypothesis, please give me a link or reference).

The lack of interest in Crystal's performance, even at the fringe, tells us how many standard deviations she has moved outside credibility. No one finds her credible.

The problem is not anyone finding Mangum credible. The problem is people are afraid to come up against some with huge resources. A rich man's justice is hard to beat. You can crap all over the little people. Who cares about them? No one.

The lack of interest in Crystal's performance, even at the fringe, tells us how many standard deviations she has moved outside credibility. No one finds her credible.I agree.

This is interesting, and even somewhat comforting.I think people (even those on the outer fringes) have finally come to the realization that the "declaration of innocence" from Cooper means what it says.

It would have been nice if the event's sponsors would have included the false case against RCD in the program. The justice system in NC is being scrutinized and changed because of the way RCD were treated. Those changes benefit everyone.

Indeed--who cared about Mangum? Only Nifong and the Durham Police, both of which were willing to violate procedures to keep her case alive; significant elements of the Duke faculty, 88 of whom were willing to sign onto a guilt-presuming statement; 49% of the Durham electorate, who voted for Nifong in Nov. 2006 knowing that he was determined to push forth with the case; the state NAACP, which abandoned a host of its traditional positions (against rigged lineups, against the victims' rights position on criminal cases) to champion Mangum's cause; local Durham "activists," who seized on her allegations with glee; trash-talkers like Nancy Grace and Wendy Murphy in the media; and the New York Times, which compromised its journalistic standards to slant coverage of the case in Mangum's direction.

But, you're right: apart from all of the above, "no one" was willing to champion Mangum's version of events.

Deception & Dishonesty Has Its Price, Right? No Doubt About It. No One Was Willing To Take A Chance On Coming Up Against Someone With Huge Resources.

The Handwriting Was On The Wall When The State Bar Got Involved While There Was An Ongoing Investigation. Why Did That Happen?

The Only Persons Willing To Take A Stand For Justice Was The Group Of 88. In That, I Commend Them. These Professors Put Their Credentials, Their Livelihood On The Line When They Had To Know Backlash Was Coming. If You Don't Stand for Something - You'll Fall For Anything.

"Just from a point of interest I do not believe that Mangum and clark were invited by an academic institution. They were invited by a multi-cultural sorority at UNC that rented UNC space for the talk. I believe it was a private invitation held at a public building on the UNC campus by a student multi-cultural society."******************

This event can be framed any way one may wish; however, it all comes down to the "black agenda".

Call it multicultural...multismchultural.

Just like the Duke conference and all such events, they invite a few token people of other races and ethnicities, or whatever, but it all boils down to the fast and furious and endlessly-grievance-bound "black agenda".

And I do believe that UNC-CH's administration does have some power over the Greeks if they choose to exercise it.

I couldn't agree more with you that the Group of 88 members put their credentials on the line when they publicly affirmed, less than two weeks after the case went public, that something "happened" to Mangum; and when they publicly thanked protesters who had, among other things, urged the castration of the lacrosse players.

The REAL problem is that prosecutorial misconduct leads to injustice. And, minorities who cannot fight back are disproportionately victimized by prosecutorial misconduct.

So, the solution is to fight prosecutorial misconduct. It is not to convict rich white men of crimes they did not commit.

Those interested in ending injustice to minorities caused by prosecutorial misconduct have made a huge mistake in the Lacrosse case. They forgot to make sure that Crystal really was a victim.

By listening to her long after they should have stopped listening, they missed a great opportunity to promote justice for minorities.

For a considerable time, they could have hitched their wagon to the falsely accused Lacrosse players. They could have pointed to one of the most egregious public cases of prosecutorial misconduct ever.

They could have said, "See. Look what we have to live with. Let's work together to change things so there will be less injustice".

The UNC diversity sorority should have invited the lacross players to come to their presentation on prosecutorial misconduct. One might have come.

Instead, the G88 and their ilk decided to play identity politics. That Crystal was black was all they needed to get on the band wagon. That the students were white, and also male, and also relatively prosperous, just sealed the deal.

Thus, the G88 and their ilk joined a long list of historical groups that have dealt justice based on identity politics. These groups include the Nazi party (Jewishness), and the Ku Klux Klan (whiteness). Rich Irony. Pretty unsavory company.

More to the point, this mistake was exactly counterproductive to the goal of improving justice for the "little people".

The little people, and the big people, want justice from prosecutors. What a crying shame you lost this great opportunity to get people like me and others like me to join you as allies.

Instead, we are left to fear for the safety of our male, white children because we are not in the identity group entitled to justice.

"The relationship they have has the appearance of a sick, symbiotic arrangement that uses casuistry, deceptive language, and feigned ignorance to make a few bucks off some actual true believers or cynical race mongers who share Clark and CGM’s dishonesty."

The use of "casuistry" and "bucks" in the same sentence is outstanding.

Inre: Walt, "...Fourth, this does not prove UNC can let controversial speakers speak. It just proves that the student body extends more courtesy to strippers than former Congressmen and former Attorneys General..."

No One Was Willing To Take A Chance On Coming Up Against Someone With Huge Resources."

You are right at least in this case, Nifong has paid a price for his deception and dishonesty.

The party with "Huge Resources" is the government, in this case Durham. The reason prosecutors are subject to ethical rules of the sort Nifong was disbarred for violating, is because it is so difficult for individuals to compete with the huge resources the government can bring to bear.

One of the many ironies of this whole fiasco is that any reforms in the prosector's office and DPD, are going to benefit the poor of Durham more than anybody else. The poor just cant compete with government's huge resoures.

The next time a line-up is done for Average Joe in Durham, and procedures are in place to prevent the DPD from rigging the results, Average Joe should be thankful to the families and supporters of RCD.

"These Professors Put Their Credentials, Their Livelihood On The Line When They Had To Know Backlash Was Coming. If You Don't Stand for Something - You'll Fall For Anything.">******************

I'm so tired of this.

If you haven't been on some desert island for the last few decades then you know that is a total falsehood.

The Gang of 88 and their parade of janissaries and mascots knew that they would be putting nothing on the line.

They knew that most universities will bend over backward into yoga-like distortions in order to feed and assist, and most of all, to never entertain the thought of questioning any race/class/gender schtick that comes down the academic pike.

You have just stated something that is exactly the opposite of reality.

And what some of us have grown tired of is this kind of total LIE.

Many of us have always been for a progressive agenda where all people are judged equally and are treated equally.

However, that idea has been exploited and warped for profit for so long that this kind of behavior will no longer be tolerated.

As I told a few speakers at the Duke conference, I will no longer suspend reality just to get along with someone.

To build on Jim Peterson's valuable thoughts, I would strongly urge those who sponsored last night's event to avoid using the Mangum hoax to promote racial justice. I will explain.

As a middle aged man, I see the Civil Rights in terms of its genuine heros and martyrs. When the pictures of Chaney, Goodman, and Schwerner flashed on the screen, I immediately knew who they were (three CORE volunteers murdered in Philadelphia, Miss in the early 1960's). I know about Emmitt Till, Rosa Parks, Medgar Evers, the Greensboro lunch counter activists, etc. These very real heroes and victims loom large in my mind when I think about this nation's shameful past and the extent to which progress has been made (and is yet to be made). But again, I am close to AARP age.

Who are these Civil Rights people to young adults and students? I would guess that, except for MLK, most a merely historical footnotes and so remote that they could as easily be from the 1860s as the 1960s. So who is current and real and replaces these Civil Rights giants for younger Americans? Tawana Brawley, Crystal Mangum, Al Sharpton, Ed Clark and other opportunists and grifters.

Do you really want this team to fight racial injustice and build bridges to the larger community? Do you want them to be the face of your cause?

The leaders and many ordinary people who fought for Civil Rights a generation ago succeeded because their bravery, sincerity, and decency were as compelling as their cause was just.

Crystal Mangum and Ed Clark simply do not fit. They in no way can be compared to the icons of the past; they have nothing to offer for the present.

I attended a portion of the presentation last night. My recollections are close to those that have already been reported, but Mr. Clark chatted with two of us afterward, and I included a few of those comments. My report can be found at

For all readers and commenters who still want to believe---although I don't think any intelligent person genuinely does believe---that the race/class/gender agenda does not reap benefits galore, know this:

N&O editor Linda Williams still maintains her perch while many more dedicated and professional employees over there have been casualties of the current downsizing.

Chris Halkides made his usual excellent, well-written and thorough report.

In my view, what is important to note is that Ed Clark has never made an ad rem argument at any time in his effort to sell Mangum's "story."

Mangum's "story" is a lie, period.

Chris' quote of Clark's statement, "What if she is lying, shouldn’t she be allowed to finish college?” reveals yet another senseless point made by Clark that is entirely irrelevant to the issue.

No one should care whether she finishes college or not. That is up to the college she attends and whether she meets the requirements to graduate. Mangum was never charged with any crime in this case and no one on the DIW Blog to my knowledge, ever advanced an argument that she shouldn't be allowed to finish college.

The supposed topic of UNCCH event was "Cracks in the Justice System," and, according to Chris, the cases discussed included "several wrongly convicted minority individuals, including Ronald Cotton, Lesly Jean, and Hector Gonzalez."

Those individuals were defendants in criminal trials ... Mangum was a false accuser in a criminal prosecution. Why then weren't the accusers in the cases of the individual defendants named asked to speak at this event?

Mangum was not a victim of injustice, her false accusations (together with the actions of other miscreants) were the cause of an injustice.

And, if Clark wants to make a point about "prosecutorial misconduct," the many versions of the "story" Mangum told actually abetted prosecutor Nifong's misconduct.

The fundamental conclusion about Ed Clark is that he represents a deeply troubled, mentally ill woman who is a pathological liar and has told myriad lies throughout this episode.

That is Mangum's "story" and nothing else.

Whether she gets to graduate; her family background; whether her cousin is a transsexual; that she was sympathetic to the press coverage of the lacrosse players; whether photos were shown of her in class; what Joe Cheshire might have said about other prosecutors in NC --- none of that is germane. Those are all obfuscations promoted by Ed Clark.

It has been proven that there does not exist, and there never was, a shred of evidence to support any accusation or "story" Mangum made up in this case.

There does exist a mountain of evidence that proves Mangum lied not once, but multiple times. That is the alpha and omega of Mangum, "nothing beside remains."

Mangum still can’t get her lies straight. Or maybe that’s her method, a la Al Sharpton during the Tawana Brawley Hoax: To produce a blizzard of lies, including ridiculous lies about what other people have said, so that (to people as twisted as she is) she sounds relatively honest. I’ve heard more than a few black racists proceed in this manner.

KC 11:59 p.m. update: “In addition, the Daily Tar Heel story on the event says that Mangum ‘was especially bothered by a news segment showing her dancing at a bar, which she said the media falsely stated was two days* after the alleged rape.’ I can't say that I read everything published about the case, but I did read an awful lot--and I cannot recall a single article that claimed the video of Mangum dancing at the strip club ‘was two days after the alleged rape.’ (The video took place on March 25, 2006, at about the same time as the 'candelight vigil' protest.”

I published the following words on January 13, 2007:

Meanwhile, in the middle of the same three-week period when Mangum was doing the rounds of local hospitals complaining of horrible, incapacitating pain and seeking narcotics, as Raleigh News & Observer reporter Joseph Neff later revealed, a March 26 film showed her doing her normal, limber, pole-dancing routine.

http://www.vdare.com/stix/070113_duke.htm

I could be off a day, but since Mangum committed her incident on the night of March 13-14, the video of her pole dancing was from at least 12 days, not two days later.

The Franklin Center seat-warmers will make sure of that! ********************

Duke, UNC in top ranks of universities nationally

From staff reports : The Herald-SunApr 24, 2009

DURHAM -- Many of the graduate and professional programs at Duke University and UNC Chapel Hill ranked among the nation's best, according to the latest U.S. News & World Report rankings of the best graduate and professional schools in the country.

Duke's Law School tied for 10th and The Fuqua School of Business was ranked 12th, both rising two places in the ranking when compared to last year. The medical school remained tied for sixth for research -- the only Southeastern school in the top 10 -- and the Pratt School of Engineering once again tied for 35th.

Among medical specialties, Duke was acknowledged in geriatrics (fourth), internal medicine (fifth), AIDS (sixth), family medicine (tied for ninth) and women's health (tied for ninth). It tied for 45th in primary care.

Within the law school, Duke was eighth in environmental law and 10th for intellectual property law. Within the business school, Duke was ranked third in marketing, fourth for executive MBA program, tied for sixth in international and seventh in management. Within engineering, Duke ranked fourth for biomedical and bioengineering.

In new rankings of Ph.D. programs in the social sciences and humanities, Duke's political science program was tied for ninth, English ranked 10th, history and sociology each tied for 14th, economics tied for 19th and psychology tied for 23rd.

Within political science, Duke was sixth in political theory, tied for ninth in American politics and 10th in comparative politics. Within English, Duke was ranked second in literary criticism and theory, second in gender and literature, and sixth in African-American Literature. Within history, Duke was first in African-American history, tied for fifth in Latin American history and tied for 10th in women's history. And within sociology, Duke was tied for sixth for social psychology.

Provost Peter Lange, the university's top academic officer, said the U.S. News & World Report rankings "are an imperfect indicator but nonetheless reflect the continued excellence of Duke's graduate and professional programs across a range of disciplines. Duke also takes pride in being a place where faculty and students reach across these disciplines routinely to explore the intersections where so many interesting questions are found."

UNC appears on more than 20 lists of schools, programs and specialty areas newly ranked by the magazine.

In the School of Medicine, primary care was ranked 2nd; research was tied for 20th; family medicine, 2nd ; rural medicine, 6th; AIDS, 9th; and in the School of Public Health, environmental/environmental health tied for 9th.

The Kenan-Flagler Business School's master of business administration program tied for 20th. The School of Information and Library Sciences tied for first and in the College of Arts and Sciences, the English doctoral program was 16th; the history program tied for 12th; political science tied for 13th; psychology tied for 13th; the School of Education was 23rd; and the School of Law tied for 30th

New rankings will appear in the May issue of U.S. News and World Report magazine, which hits newsstands April 28, and in the "America's Best Graduate Schools" guidebook. Details will be available at www.usnews.com

The rankings, the magazine said, are based on expert opinion about program quality and statistical indicators that measure the quality of a school's faculty, research and students, according to magazine officials.

Thought I was up on the latest pop-culture trends; however, when words and phrases change with the seasons as they always do among the trend-setters of black culture, it's difficult to keep abreast of each puerile gyration.

Just found this bit of valuable information from a H-S McCann column which everyone will need to know.****************************

The term "dime" is slang for female. So a mahogany dime is a black woman.

Or as the Rev. Carl Kenney told the audience, a mahogany dime is Michelle Obama, who was making more money than Barack when he was a senator. But she didn't trip. No, she faithfully had his back all the way to the White House, where the two are raising a couple of ebony nickels, as Kenney cleverly called the Obama's daughters.

This is rich...from Debrah at 7:54 a.m. above..."Provost Peter Lange, the university's top academic officer, said ...Duke also takes pride in being a place where faculty and students reach across these disciplines routinely to explore the intersections where so many interesting questions are found."

You want to pay $200,000 to answer "interesting questions" related to the following topics? I didn't think so.

From the Duke Spring 2009 Women’s Studies Newsletter:

“Lesbianism with Chinese Characteristics: An Interview with Dr. Elisabeth Engebretsen in the Duke Women’s Studies publication.

OR

"Sex at Work": An Interview with Dr. Svati Shaw by Kinohi Nishikawa

PS: A Short Take from the Third Annual Feminist Theory Workshop “For me, this year’s Third Annual Feminist Theory Workshop was particularly striking in that the four keynote speaker ALL (emphasis mine) returned to the rich theoretical traditions of Marxism to rethink various kinds of economic, political, social, and cultural issues in the contemporary world….” – Calvin Hui Women’s

Studies Spring Events

1/15 - In Print: A Celebration of Recent Publications by Duke Professors

After all that has happened at this point I just feel sorry for Crystal Mangum and even worse for her family and children. I have been mad, outraged, angry, etc....but to hear Crystal is still trying to hang on to this situation and peddle her book is really just very pathetic & sad.

How despicable, and how pathetic. At least this proves that Duke is not alone in its race to the bottom of the barrel.

To put this in context of UNC-CH's recent disgrace (condemned by almost everyone including the News & Observer), over its fascist student element using rocks and idiotic screams to prevent any words from a (similarly moronic, although right-wing) guest speaker: I am one hundred per cent in favor of great universities allowing speech by *intellectually* (not just pigmentally) diverse people, including those who will offend nearly everyone -- if only to expose young minds to the range of stench that exists in our political universe.

But...

This debacle has nothing to do with (legitimate) opinion, or ideology, or free speech. To invite Psycho/Liar Mangum to speak at any institution of learning, as if she had anything truthful of useful to say, was a vile endorsement of slander and criminality.

Mangum belongs, in all justice, in either of 2 places: a prison, or a mental institution. And, failing that, at minimum she belongs in total exile among all thinking people, of all political stripes.

And anyone who endorses her, by inviting her to speak anywhere outside of an insane asylum, shares in her criminality and lunacy, and says more about themselves, than they do about all of the "racist" and "sexist" and "rapist" boogeymen who haunt their inane fantasies.

This came across today and is of interest. Of course Robert Conquest's "The Great Terror" and Paul Johnson's "Modern Times" are two other seminal and sobering works that help us understand how and why people like those in Durham and at Duke act the way they do.

One wonders if any of these four books are on any of the required reading lists for any course at Duke.

"This year marks the twentieth anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall. A watershed moment, to be sure. We forget too easily, however, the victims of communism, millions of dead and tortured. Current events at home and abroad remind us how quickly events can unfold and trigger political shifts, how seemingly overnight change of the most dramatic kind can occur. It is wise and sobering to reflect on the recent past as a reminder of the dangers of ideology, or, as Russell Kirk referred to it, “armed doctrine.”

To remember this anniversary, we’ve packed together two critically important books: Paul Hollander’s FROM THE GULAG TO THE KILLING FIELDS, which gathers together more than forty dramatic personal memoirs of Communist violence and repression from political prisoners across the globe; and Alain Besançon’s A CENTURY OF HORRORS,which examines the destruction caused by Communism and Nazism, and explains why the relation between these terrible ideologies has been all but forgotten by Western elites.

The Victims of Communism SetAs a bonus, when you order either set, you will receive a free CD of a prophetic lecture given in the early 1970s by one of the intellectual giants in conservative thought, Dr. Gerhart Niemeyer (1907-1997). In “Two Socialisms,” Niemeyer explains how and why socialism remains attractive to so many and why we should take great measures to avoid its ruinous spread." - ISI Books

"Would not CGM be the "falsehood" accuser rather than the "false" accuser as she in fact was the accuser not somebody else?"

I think that what I sometimes hear in the critique is the unspoken hope that the right terms of a struggle, the masterful rubric, description, account, or theory of struggle, will always remain expropriation proof. But we’ve been producing accounts, theories, rubrics, descriptions, etc., long enough (if we take into account centuries of struggle) that we ought to know such things are always up for grabs, always available for some use other than that intended. If Monsanto (for example) can make use of multiculturalism as advertising, as justification for yet more seizure of resources, and as diversity management among its work force, should we be surprised and dismayed, or should we work to make what the term named, a challenge to material domination in the sphere of education and knowledge production exercised as the Enlightenment right of a single and erroneously described “culture,” a project with ever-renewed and sharpened ambitions?...Call the project what you will and rename it every time the older name seems to lose its luster, but continue the work that the project once tried to name in its moment.

"Would not CGM be the "falsehood" accuser rather than the "false" accuser as she in fact was the accuser not somebody else?"The next sentence is false. Crystal Mangum is a false accuser. The previous sentence is true.

The justice system is a joke. There is a mini Nifong doing the same things in the Los Angeles courts. His name is Martin Boags and he is spending millions of dollars when Los Angeles is broke prosecuted an innocent person and rewarding a sick person called Tig Notaro for being a blatant liar. I'm reading It's not about the truth and it is almost identical to what is happening to me.

Blog Awards

About Me

I am from Higgins Beach, in Scarborough, Maine, six miles south of Portland. After spending five years as track announcer at Scarborough Downs, I left to study fulltime in graduate school, where my advisor was Akira Iriye. I have a B.A. and Ph.D. from Harvard, and an M.A. from the University of Chicago. At Brooklyn College and the CUNY Graduate Center, I teach classes in 20th century US political, constitutional, and diplomatic history; in 2007-8, I was Fulbright Distinguished Chair for the Humanities at Tel Aviv University.

Book

Comments Policy

(1) Comments are moderated, but with the lightest of touches, to exclude only off-topic comments or obviously racist or similar remarks.

(2) My clearing a comment implies neither that I agree nor that I disagree with the comment. My opinion is expressed in my words and my words only. Since this blog has more than 1500 posts, and since I at least occasionally comment myself, the blog provides more than enough material for readers to discern my opinions.

(3) If a reader finds an offensive comment, I urge the reader to e-mail me; if the comment is offensive, I will gladly delete it.

(4) Commenters who either misrepresent their identity or who engage in obvious troll behavior will not have their comments cleared. Troll-like behavior includes, but is not limited to: repeatedly linking to off-topic sites; repeatedly asking questions that already have been answered; offering unsubstantiated remarks whose sole purpose appears to be inflaming other commenters.

"From the Scottsboro Boys to Clarence Gideon, some of the most memorable legal narratives have been tales of the wrongly accused. Now “Until Proven Innocent,” a new book about the false allegations of rape against three Duke lacrosse players, can join these galvanizing cautionary tales . . , Taylor and Johnson have made a gripping contribution to the literature of the wrongly accused. They remind us of the importance of constitutional checks on prosecutorial abuse. And they emphasize the lesson that Duke callously advised its own students to ignore: if you’re unjustly suspected of any crime, immediately call the best lawyer you can afford."--Jeffrey Rosen, New York Times Book Review